tv Capital News Today CSPAN July 5, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
very specific. i have to know everything. i have to pass the test. there is no test. there is no classic for running for office, except working for a candidate, volunteering. and as you observed in the edgar administration, you saw government at work, which is the best class you can take. i wrote a book. when in more than men often have to be asked to run. they have to put themselves affforward and say, hey, i'm great. vote for me. sometimes the women that varies from one part of the country to the other are not in the loop as to who will be the kennedy, who denominate. so you at -- will be the candidate who denominate?
the morning after arrival collected, i walked into my executive office, and all of these somber faces stared down at me with names like ebenezer. [laughter] i felt the portraits tilt to each other, what is she doing here? minorities are often newcomers to historical establishments. it is how we form our pictures in our minds of what they should look like. the importance of women and people with different life experiences regardless of gender is that we bring different experience into the decision-making process. that sometimes changes not only the questions that are asked,
but how they get answered. >> i hope you all agree with me that this nation is very well served by having four former governors of the quality that we saw tonight. [applause] >> in a few moments, of a forum on preparations for another terrorist attack. in an hour-and-a-half, a ceremony for the slaves to help build the u.s. capitol. after that, we will be aired this forum, and members of congress marked the 50th anniversary of the start of the korean war. queen elizabeth ii speakes said united nations tomorrow afternoon, offering an overview of human rights, peace efforts,
and climate change. we will cover that, starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern. c-span is no available and over 100 million homes bring you washington your way, of public service created by america's cable companies. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who served on the bench. read our latest book, "the supreme court," candid conversations with all the justices, active and retired. now available in hardcover and also as an e-book. >> up next, a form on homeland security and how we -- and how prepared we are for a another terrorist attack -- terrorist attack. this last an hour and a half. >> if we could all reassemble,
we are about to start. i am going to begin. welcome to the next session -- the title is how prepared are we for the next 9/11? we have a terrific panel to address this issue. we have senator hart who helped prevent -- who helped predict a terrorist attack. senator jim talent from the latest commission that says that we're not prepared. and someone from the private sector. to moderate the session, we have an admiral, president chief executive officer of the relief society, dedicated to assisting sailors, marines, and their family. he served as the acting homeland security adviser to the president.
he currently serves as the chairman of the advisory channel for support of civilian authorities after certain incidents. >> i'm trying to get them to a shortened that but it has icahn. -- but it has not caught on. i am grateful to have this opportunity to lead a discussion on terrorism preparedness. i am. the start by posing the question to our panelists. after a provide to you some counterpoints on what is generally known as cbrne threats. chemical, biological and radiological, nuclear, and high explosives.
we're going to use that to cover the territory with the threat -- with the terrorism preparedness. chemical threats -- some say that it is unlikely that an attack with a chemical weapon could cause mass casualties. they cite sarin attack in japan as a huge undertaking with few fatalities. others say that the delivery of a persistent agent in an enclosed, densely populated space may kill hundreds, if not thousands, and will certainly cause panic and mass destruction as it did after that attack. biological -- a senior official from the department of homeland security said recently that a biological attack is one of the two top priorities for dhs.
others say that obtaining and delivering the biological agents, one which results in many fatalities, is actually expensive, scientifically challenging, and likely to be beyond the near-term capability of any sub-state terrorist organization. radiological. it is said that a dirty bomb is unlikely because many fatalities or major physical damage. others say that the long-term contamination from such an attack the lead to -- leave a major metropolitan area uninhabitable for decades and the cleanup would be long and exceptionally expensive. the nnclear threat -- that same official from dhs said that an improvised nuclear device is the
other of dhs's top two priorities. some said that the terrorist for a variety of reasons are unlikely to be able to obtain, transport, and that made such a device successfully inside the united states. and finally, high explosives. many say that we should continue to plan for this most likely attack by terrorists. it is a low-tech, relatively inexpensive, and almost always effective like christmas day and times square notwithstanding. others say that terrorists, especially al qaeda, are looking for something more sophisticated in and attack that will result -- produced results even more dramatic than 9/11. with that as a background, i
will started down the path up getting to look at those. before we actually talk about the specific threats, i want to ask this preliminary question of each of the panelists. if you are able to listen to remarks about taking down the al qaeda leadership and the apparent lack of progress of terrorist groups in obtaining biological and nuclear capabilities, you might be convinced that the chance of a major attack on the u.s., especially w india attacks, is diminished. my question ii -- how convinced are you that there will be another major terrorist attack in the u.s., another 9/11? and i will start with you. >> thank you. i think we need to look at it in
a very broad perspective, organization. they are clear networked, so even if you look in an organization which is weak, if you have to look at other organized -- organizations connected to him, which are not that we. and such as hezbollah, politically i cannot confront the u.s. but i can do it for different channels like out added. you do not always looked at the capacity of the organization itself, but the capacity of its network. this is something that is critical to understand. we cannot look at terror as corporate america. they have very unique ways of
thinking. the second thing which is very important, we have to look at the approach to terror. you may -- you might take a very small terrorist organization but has access to technology. their capacity [unintelligible] and you have to find out that relationship with them. i think we bring an understanding that which is suspect and repair. >> thank you. senator hart. >> let me begin with all the people at the aspen institute and welcome you all here, particularly those of you who have not visited this community before. i hope you will take some time to travel around aspin and see how average coloradons live.
[laughter] and you might go to see how they regard to the airport to see how the commission among their various houses. this is an extraordinary convention and we're very proud of it. i am convinced that they -- there will certainly be other major efforts to disrupt the u.s. economy and ginger and kill as many americans as possible. if you then get into the kind of taxonomy of terrorism as the admiral has outlined, and if you read them backward from the mind of the terrorists, you look for what is the easiest thing to do and could cause the most damage. i look at the biological threat. i used to say in response to this thread, predicted this
threat that it would not be in new york or los angeles, it would be denver, cleveland, and dallas. i ot pressing inquiries from cleveland saying, what do you know that we do not? even though new yorkers believe in our best prepared for other attacks, because they have this experience, if you want to terrorize americans, you do not keep hitting new york city. you come to the vulnerable in multiple targets, and the terrorists themselves become the weapons of mass destruction by voluntarily investingg themselves with highly contagious viruses, and going to public events, and certainly not a conference such as this, and exposing that virus to as many people as possible. all the other varieties are
certainly possible but that is the one that concerns me the most. >> i know that the gramm-talent commission had a conclusion and some point, so i hope you get to a. >> i agree with everything the senator said. we were a follow-on for the 9-11 commission. congress in the summer of 2007 want us to create this commission to answer the commission question, what happened at the most dangerous people in the world get the most dangerous weapons and will? how can we prevent that? bob graham was the chairman, and we studied this through the spring of 2008. bob was in intel, and i was a
clean stellate on this -- i was a clean slate on this. i know how afraid many people were like colin powell, president obama, everyone's saying this is the nightmare that they are worried about. we interviewed hundreds of people and look to all the classified data and reach the conclusion that the possibility of a wmd attack was growing and would reach a probability within five years. 2013. we do not have intel say 2013 but this is a short-term thing. this is not 15 years from now that it might happen. there's a substantial chance now and it is growing, and moreover, we said what is likely to happen, you have a plan on the assumption that it will eventually happen and change the probabilities of the trend.
the things that he is talking about are helpful. they are not sitting there and conditions in the world favor them. i'll go through this very briefly. a lot of this stuff has become public, the by a lapse that they were doing in afghanistan, trying to divide the nuclear material, so we know that they are trying to do this. it fits their tactic, to hit vulnerable areas, densely populated areas, as hard as you can with asymmetric weapons. the airplanes that they used in 9/11 were asymmetric weapons, with a far greater impact. the ultimate asymmetric weapon is a nuclear weapon. we know that they're trying. we know if this their tactic.
they haae an organization capable of doing it. it is not scientifically beyond them at all. if you recruit the like -- the right scientists, you can develop the bioweapon. anthrax exist in nature. you can get smallpox. you can what denies it. it is not that difficult. you could turn the anthrax or the play into a dry salary, you get 1 pound of it, but if you get a pickup truck, you drive up and down in st. louis, the fourth of july with the paint sprayer, and you do not know that you have been attacked until a couple of days. dhs has modeled it in new york. you can kill hundreds of thousands of people. we know that they want, they are trying to it, it is well within their capabilities, and the opportunities are there.
it is exploding all of the world. we thought that bio was more likely than nuclear because there are bottlenecks to nuclear. you have to eventually somewhere in the chain -- and national economy has to be involved in getting the nuclear material. that is hard. it is harder to weapon nuys. so we thought bio was more likely. we were careful to say that it is not that our government is trying to stop it. we're not totally screwed up. we will talk about how they are screwing up but this is hard. that is the reason they're trying to do it, because they know that it is hard to defend against. in war, it is sometimes necessary to take into account the enemy, said churchill. it is hard enough first world
society. i would agree, since we're doing things, but i will disclose -- bob graham, who used to be chairman of the intel committee, he went with director panetta and interviewed all the people. he said that if anything, our estimate was too conservative. in these serious people saying this. -- and these are serious people saying this. >> it is not a laugh riot in here right now. to add to this menu of horrible possibilities, i would take a slightly different approach, something i am worried about from time to time over the years
since 9/11, and that is al qaeda's ingenuity for utilizing what is your against us. -- what is here against us. 1 9/11, they used with great destructive force the powers of an airliner filled with fuel which became a flying bomb. i have been concerned about the possibility of attacks against the transportation of hazardous material by rail. chlorine gas, for example, which is transported by csx on a real line -- rail line only blocks from the nuclear capital. our nuclear plants are another
potential area of destruction. you get into technical stuff, but you do not have to get to the core of a nuclear plant to cause tremendous, horrendous destruction. >> we had unanimity on the severity of this issue. i would like to talk about how we are organized to deal with it. dwight eisenhower said that the right organization will not guarantee success, but the wrong one will guarantee failure. yesterday we heard one secretary discuss the progress being made by the department of common security over the 70 years -- seven years show that it has been in existence. then at lunch, france townsend said that if she had to do it over again, she might reengineer some of it. senator hart, i know that you
looked at this early on. we talked about how what formed itself in the basement of the white house. had you feel it has done so far? >> two observations. all of us would agree -- everyone in the room -- the one under% protection is not achievable. we're talking about relative success. i mentioned to some people are earlier that some years back i had secret service protection. they came to our home and sat by and i down. they said, if someone decides to kill you, they will probably kill you. it's the only time my question running for president. he said, our job is to make it as difficult as possible. i think that that is the standard. is dhs doing everything within its power under the law to make
it as difficult as possible? without having access to classified briefings and knowing exactly what is going on on the inside, the answer is relatively yes. we are a lot better prepared than we were a decade ago, to be sure. the second observation is that the department from the standpoint of 1,500 miles away, it is an administrative nightmare. i agreed with the commissioner yesterday to ask if it should be reorganized. i think it would be possible to separate that counter-terrorism tasks from the routine border patrol, customs, and other missions. the answer is yes. congress would drag its feet, the administration does not want to go back and reengineered the thing, but to make the department as effective as
possible, that ought to be done. >> center to talent, at the u.s. of you on how -- senator talent , do you have an idea on how dhs has done? >> you cannot say that the dhs experiment has been a success. a lot of good work is being done and we have done a lot of work since 9/11. this is a big nation and everyone has been energized. the problem is, we're not the only ones n the field. i would identify the structural problems -- and structure is the big problem here, several fold. one of them is that in the nuclear side of that, the
nuclear age began with a nuclear explosion. everyone knew right from the beginning that nuclear as dangerous propensities, and our nation had years to develop that. bio is more recent. we have not mounted the learning curve and up. there are two dozen presidentially appointed, senate confirmed people with authority over bio, and no one has a handle on it. i know you feel the same way -- congress has got a change the way that it oversees dhs. >> absolutely. >> the congressional oversight process can be enormously successful. they really add on balance to policy and development in the
series. but when you split up oversight among literally 70 or 80 different subcommittees' or committees, and you get the negatives of oversight multiplied, and you get no positives -- congress has structurally made itself a negative. not everybody in it. that is a huge problem structurally. we have been saying for this -- this for years and it is time to fix it. and the other problem, particularly with bio preparation, there quattro there -- there are four players. if the government just wants to stop things from happening, it can take an adversarial stance. but you have to work with other
groups. for example, with countermeasures, there is that federal partnership and the federal government needs to be the leader there. there are some big problems within the federal government and i think that dhs is part of that and i would identify that as who is in charge. and i will add one thing. i think the top level people have o figure out what different structure, because they will not fix it in time. just like an arteries blocked, you run the blood for capillaries and to get an operation. >> dhs has been constructed in this all-hazard mode. it takes care of everything, from natural disaster to the border problem, to the cbrne
issues. the question is asked -- if you prepare for the cbrne case, have you adequately prepared for everything else? >> the answer is no, bob. history always has small organizations trying to fight information. what is the difference? this is the first time in human history that small organizations have the capacity destruction that once was only in hands of nations. this is what we're talking about over here. this is a major shift. the second issue that we hear over here -- how difficult for the dhs to work. it is a human organization.
it is facing an organization that their biggest asset is not organization but that they can move verr fast. very fast and very creative and very innovative enemy. we kids -- we keep saying al qaeda, and it is misleading to think about it that way, but you're taking very creative, very small organizations and putting in front of them a very complicated organization. where i come from, i do not think that is the way you can do it. that is the reason that you have to create some shift in the way you cooperate against that organization. you put in front of them an organization that is very smart
and tough. >> richard, i want to say that we know that richard is going to have to leave us early. i like to offer you the opportunity to comment on that and then i had one other fallout. >> on congressional oversight of the 43 recommendations that the 9/of 11 commission made its final report, we recognize that the most difficult ones to achieve was a recommendation for streamlining congressional oversight over the intelligence community, particularly dhs. it is absolutely crazy quilt. i agree with mike, that the situation confronting us on december 26, was a lot different. and yet there were echoes of the problems of connecting the dots
and communications. it was not the same and there has been tremendous progress made. having said that, you cannot take the human element out of the equation. with respect to the christmas day attend, a u.s. human failures. had the state department recognized that he did not have a valid visa to travel to the united states, i think he would have been subject to secondary screening in amsterdam. someone might have asked him why he was going to detroit without an overcoat and a bunch of other questions that might have clearly identified him as someone who should not be travelling on that plane.
let me mention a couple of other things. clearly that christmas they attempt was a wake-up call that we will be under attack for the immediate future. the analogy to a virus that will wax and wane is a good one. in terms of dealing with the skirt of terrorism. we are doing better. a couple of observations. dni is in flux. our recommendation there has been among the most difficult systemic changes to make work. i think that dni has to be rethought by the president. it has not operated as hoped. there are a bunch of reasons for there is huge resistance by
the department of defense and the cia to try to strangle the baby in the crib. the president has to take leadership but he has to define what dni should be. its primary mission should be interconnected the among the intelligence communities. one major thing that has been talked about over the last couple of days here, and i really have to commend clark ervin and the aspen institute for putting this together, a tremendous learning experience for me. i appreciate being able to for dissipate. that has to do with civil liberties and the issue of harnessing the tremendous capability we have to collect information, but our need is to
assemble that information into some usable form for the best results for americans. i was very active in terms of recommending, during the commission's hearings, that would pay close attention to the question of civil rights and civil liberties. we need to have a dialogue in this country. we need to be able to harness the capability to utilize our technology in the most efficient way possible while at the same time protecting our civil liberties. we can do that. in 2004, the congress created as part of its reorganization law the legislation that creates a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. it is not a surprise in the bush administration it was a feckless
and useless group. president obama has not yet appointed the privacy and civil liberties oversight board and i suggest that he should do so and i suggest that this could be the vehicle from which we have an intelligent discussion within government about using our capabilities to mine information to connect the dots, while at the same time protecting our civil liberties. and finally, let me make just one observation in terms of bandwidth in terms of our first response is. nine years after 9/11, the fcc has still not provided dedicated bandwidth for our first responders. 1 9/11, many deaths could have
been avoided had the fire department and the police department been able to communicate with themselves. it is high time that we got some action on that. it is shameful that we do not have it yet. >> richard, one of the issues the 9/11 commissioners wrestled with was whether the current structure of government was appropriate for the counter- terrorism missions, and specifically whether there needed to be any surgery or operations in the fbi's role. do you have a feeling now, looking back, whether the decision effectively not to do anything at the fbi was the right decision? >> i think that it was. the fbi has struggled to perform its mission on counter-terrorism side.
i have a personal high regard for director mollen. that being said, it is shameful that once again the senate intelligence committee, in in its report on the christmas day bomber, identify the fact that they still did not have the capacity for their i.t. to communicate within the organization itself. therefore one of the key analysts was denied access to intelligence that was in another place at the fbi. it is shameful that we have not fix that problem. what i would look to hear in terms of the growing threat of domestic terrorism is the
example both in london and in 1994 the train bombing in madrid -- where for trains -- four trains were attacked with some 13 explosive backpacks, bombs inside backpacks. it caused significant deaths and injuries among the spanish population. those attacks were not connected to al qaeda. those connect -- those attacks were by foreigners -- foreign nationals living in spain who had come together in principle, arrested for street crime, and shared their radical views, became more radicalized, supported themselves when they got out on selling drugs, and yet were able to coroneted
attacked -- coordinate an attack -- that four trains were detonated within the space of three minutes -- and this is a tremendous problem for us. transportation, these type of domestic attacks where the f bi as primary -- has primary -- we cannot rely on the confidence of our adversaries. we have been lucky in the last two big ones -- the times square and the christmas day. we cannot rely on that. we talk about the cooperation between the new york police department, the cia, the fbi, and others. the present vendors association.
we have to have the force multiple -- multiplier. the fbi has to be honest toes. i do not think this country should have the equivalent of a secret police that has the mission. i think the fbi can do it, but this requires presidential leadership to stay on top of this the jubilation and require the fbi to fill the mission. i believe they are ultimately capable of it. >> no mi. -- mi-5. i greatly appreciate your for dissipations a day and said travel. -- your participation today and say to travel. -- safe travel. it is the federal structure of
this great country, and the good and the other with respect to defending homeland. the federal level brings enormous resources to bear on these issues. but there are 50 states and eight territories and more than 3000 counties in this country. it creates some complexities. to put it lightly. in operational planning, a military person always asks the question, who is in charge? here in the united states, that can be a tough question in the case of the domestic disaster. i am going ask the senator if you believe that that is a problem. >> yes, although actually -- it
is a great question and a good subject. it is an opportunity to highlight what we're doing better and some of the areas where we have some problems. listed in the context of bio, which we all agree is of threat. one of the advantages of dealing with bio rather than nuclear, is that if you propel well enough, you can take it all other wmd list. if a nuclear bomb goes off, there is a limit how much you can limit the damage. but with our current distribution networks, we're close to eliminating smallpox. we can vaccinates of quickly. then a lot of people do not die. some people died but not a lot. it is not a weapon of mass destruction. how the plan effectively and
then respond quickly? there are four things. you have to stockpile the countermeasures. you have to be able to detect when an attack has occurred and be 6 relational aware of how it is developing. the contagion ideas, if you got a few infected terrorist and an airport. the gatt and the planes. you have to know who is sick in the country. that is the real problem. all you have to do -- there is no time in the president of the united states could have gone to cdc and find out who has h1n1 in this country. not the kind of certainty that you need. yet have detection, situational awareness, then distribute quickly and ispense the countermeasures, and then you have to decontaminate afterwards. our federal structure makes that difficult because the first is
mostly federal -- stockpiling. decontamination should be federal. the middle is delivering a service to people. they are heavily local and state. i think the leadership and planning ought to be federal, state and local on the middle two. there has to be a partnership. an execution, when you actually respond. there is a constitutional imperative here. if you are responding to an attack, the president has the authority in the constitution. why should he delegate that to individual, locally, it depends on the attack. it is one city -- 9/11 basically -- if you have an effective leader, delegate. it is something like that disaster in the gulf now, it ought to be federal. we can make our federal structure and our decentralize
society a positive. all of those fragments allies people are dedicated, hard- working, ingenious people and we can make it work force if a sense of urgency was there. we declare what the nature of the threat is so everyone says that this is something that we do something about, in the new in our people. and you can empower people. i will give you examples -- the fbi, we have the vision centers which is federal, local, and others sharing. some are not part of the fusion center. they have to be a part of this process. why can't people who live in high risk areas prepare themselves? we've done studies in my home town of st. louis. we have given instructions about how to use this properly and the test work. i think we need to move down this of the people -- the stuff
is already out there. we should not be afraid to empower people. the attitude has to be, there has to be a sense of they co- mission. the federal government can fund the dollars for rapid diagnostics. you can find out if you are pregnant in a matter minutes. it takes days to diagnose and correct. -- anthrax. in terms of response, as a practical matter, the president will decide he is in control or delegate to someone. if it is across jurisdictional lines, functionally it will have to be federal. >> you have both mention bio threat as a major threat. but posit that there is a major biological attacked on the country.
a question would be, who is the thad allen for the bio case. >> overwhelmingly the first responders by definition are going to be local. emergency health workers, police, and firemen by and large. i'll circle around the specifics of your question but there is an interesttng constitutional issue here. most americans are not aware that the constitution creates two armies. there's obviously the standing army, the professional army, and the second was the militia, now the national guard. the commission that i served on forecasting terrorist attacks set up the backbone of homeland security had to be the national guard. that comes from ancient republican theory, small r,
which says that we do not want professional military enforcing the laws of the united states. we want citizen-soldiers to do that. that goes back to cincinnatus and the athenian republic. the problem as you know -- the big policy decision was made post-vietnam to make the national guard a follow-on. so it is in iraq, not in denver or colorado. instead of being here training and equipping for triage and confinement on an attack of any cakind, they are all fighting ws and that is an enormous bundle ability.
the national guard is full were deployed in the united states. they live in the communities. and now in its wisdom, the supreme court says that not only the national guard can keep guns in their closets, all the rest of us can. that is a separate issue but that is part of the reason for the second amendment. i don't think there are enough doctors in the national health service to deploy around this country. it is going to be up to the local emergency health workers. are they well enough trained right now? this is the test of the federal system. in some cases they are. i made a point of talking to the emergency health responders in denver. they are ready to go. i don't know whether that is true in other places. >> do you have a nomination for thethad allen scenario?
>> there are lots of talented americans. unfortunately too many of them do not want to be in the service today. that is a separate issue. >> with response to an attack, it would be a public health official, and i think it would depend on where the attack was, and who had the confidence. planning is a degree kind of thing. -- is a different kind of thing. you would have to wait to see who it was. i don't disagree with what you said about the national guard. i'm just saying that the president can paralyze -- federalize. i think that is a decision the president would have to make. >> i hope that we can come back to both the planning issue and the car.
i want to ask you, but looking at this country, and you live in new york for some many years but u.s. and a lot of the rest of the world. do we have a particularly difficult circumstance here, because of our federal system? what would you do to prepare people here? should we be issuing gas masks? >> i don't know about the federal system. i want to describe to all of you what happens when such an event takes place. community systems fall down. you don't have any situational picture knowing who is heard and who is not heard. you do not know what is happening in the hospitals. do not know how many beds there.
you don't know about chemical or biological. let's say it is biological. but the district hospital. this is a very complicated capability. and i am not sure there are any clear technologies. i am doing this around the world. it is a very complicated challenge. everything collapses. the most basic things -- parents are looking for their children, children looking for their parents, hospitals. if you want to prepare for such a challenge, you have to make some serious decisions.
[unintelligible] this relates to the question of the resiliency of the nation. if we all agree that such a thing might happen, and we pray that it will not happen and we try to prevent, but if we thiik it will happen, and if we understand the kind of damage that it can create, and try to control the damage when it takes place, what is the country going to do about in terms of how the country is going to react to such an event? 9/11 took the country into a two course. will another attack to the the united states? what is the political leadership going to do? more than that, what is the world going to think about an
america so easily exposed to such a major event? i would say right now, we made -- we must prepare ourselves deeply in terms of resiliency. i would not allow devastating events to change the way that i live, change my civil rights, change by politics, it change my policies. someone has to define it right now that if it happens. it happens, we like to think that we can control the situation. history is the force of nature, stronger than all of this year, and it might take a great country to the wrong place. i sell $7 billion of technology around the world and it is a great discussion to say that we
can deal with it, [unintelligible] halas' my country going to deal with this when it happens? it may take you in a direction that you do not want to go. >> this is one of the few truly bipartisan issues left in washington. we did not encounter any of that in our discussion. and i think they made an comment earlier that could be construed as attack in the congress. -- i think that i made a comment earlier that could be construed as an attack on the congress. there are exceptions to that. we said that in our report. they're both moving important pieces of legislation, really doing their best. the house is doing a really good bill. and a couple of great people are
here today and i don't -- when not what you think was indicting the rest of them. i'll put that on the table. >> i'll let the follow-up on this issue of preparation. monte has talked about. i'll live to the period right after 9/11 when gov. ridge was trying to sell the nation on duct tape, and it only got him a couple of titles and an invitation to jay leno show. prevention requires of body and from the american people. -- a buy-in from the american people.
>> the medical kits should be available to the first sponsors -- responders. they contain the drugs that we do have available to deal with the most likely -- eight pathogens that most people will think are going to be the one. they adapt and you cannot ever be certain. but that change in the link of resilience, in a bio case. stockpiling, detection, along with situational awareness, distribution, and then that the common name it -- to do -- the decontamination. about 55% of the population are covered by stockpiles of drugs that have been distributed. and they're testing plans on how to help localities dispense it on two tracks. localities in their own local way, and governments, and we he
-- and we have to find that better. -- fund that better. unified decision making. bob graham and i suggested that the office of the vice-president of the be in charge of this on the federal level. it could be more than that. we have of vice-president that has a history in the congress of dealing with that. there only two people in the cabinet -- the president and vice-president. that would be a step ahead. but it is the whole problem in our political system, the virgin keep crowding out the important. this is both urgent and important. >> i would like to come back to something monte said about the confusion, the turmoil that occurs when there is a major
disaster. in the military, we have a term called the fog of war. even though the military is generally credited with having a very well designed and repetitively use planning system in which we actually designate individuals as military planners and have an entire career devoted to that discipline, we educate them, we train them, and the whole system is built on having a plan when you start an operation. . t all military commanders also that a good plan it generally doesn't last 24 hours passed the beginning of an operation, and at is what creates the fog of war. but in a domtic circumstance, the complexity is multiplied many times over that, i would
argue, for the military case. so, my question for the panel is, how are we doing on the domestic side for a planning system for domestic response to a serious attack? >> the fallacy of, not your question, but the question of the topic, are we prepared. it depends on who we are. we are 300 million people in a mass democracy. some are better prepad than others. i do not think you can generalize about the uniform status of preparedness or responsiveness across this country. for a long time, i could not walk through new york without
being stopped by people asking, "when are we going to be hit again?" they did not mean the united states. they meant new york. i think most people realize that new york is more prepared now than the rest of the country. i recently went to los angeles and long beach. we do not want to give the terrorist any ideas here, as if they could not figure it out themselves, but if you want to see a vulnerable facility, visit the ports of long beach and los angeles. it is a mess. it is virtually indefensible. it is five minutes from lax. there are three private arenas embedded in the ports. cruise ship lines, tens of thousands of semitrailer trucks coming and going, it defies protection. so, the sweeping question about
are we prepared, what is the level of preparation, it has to be incident-specific. i would just like to finish up with a comment on the concept of a resilience. the senator and others have used it. it is an ide that i associate most of all with a former coast guard commander who has written on the subject. his pieces is, if al-qaeda or the enemy -- his thesis is that if al-qaeda or the enemy knows that there is backup system, systems forer finance, energy or transportation, if they know that within hours of taking down that system a backup system will be in place, that takes away a
lot of incentive for shutting that system down. i think that applies across the board. we cannot have duplicates systems for everything in this country. separate hospitals to replace this one if they get blown up or whatever, buthere is a lot to be said for having the capability to put that down capability back in operation locally, nationally or wherever as a means of deterring people who try to destroy it. . .
there animes depend and that is what they have asked. rather than locations. in terms of preparation, it is talent here. the failure to stockpile a countermeasures' is a huge problem. we have two programs. they are getting funded at 10% of what they should be. it is incredibly frustrating. there are a lot of good state al systems for health reporting, but we have not link them together. i am concerned with a contagious disease as opposed to
anthrax, that we will not know what the situation is. if we don't know the situation then we cannot deal with it. it is difficult we have an academic -- have an epidemic and top leaders don't know who is sick. you put anthrax in the new york subway system, even if you minimize the impact on the people you have to get that out of there or else you cannot use the subway system. you just shut down new york. -pwe are not where we need to be there. richard touched on this. we have so many good people. many of them are prepared, but we have not dealt with how they can link together. and with this an issue. -- bandwidths an issue.
this is an area the federal government could help with money. those are the major gaps. the problem is it is a link in the chain. if any one of them is broken -- it doesn't matter how good a distribution system you have. i will have to say that the military minds still comes back to the notion that if you have a well-established plan that has got in place those issues of linkage, relationships, because you define a chain of command. it is not so easy, but you define the resources required and means to get them there. it is a standing plan. it appears to me we have not
yet established a planning mechanism for that. >> there is no plan. >> i know we are close to the time where we need to get the audience to ask questions, but i want to mention one thing, because it relates to this issue of complexity. we are seeing this in the gulf oil spill at the moment, which is how do you provide for the incorporation of international assistance? we all saw what occurred in haiti and the difficulties involved with substantial assets and no immediate means to coordinate that.
that could be an issue in this country. until katrina, the u.s. had never accepted outside assistance. we have been offered substantial assistance in the case of the gulf oil spill. my understanding is that has not gone smoothly. it seems to me international assistance is something all of us need to understand how to do officially. >> i agree. i think [unintellible] the coalition for preparedness, and to be able to support the correlation which will be out -- dealing with a complex environment. let's look at it in a mathematical tool.
this is what will happen in a biological event. nothing will be predictable. something happens and you will think -- the next thing will happen over here. 9/11, i think new york is the best fire department in the world. they are well-equipped. they are stationed in almost every location. they are real heroes. and yet when something happens that they are not used to, they have a very big challenge. they did not know how to deal with that challenge. you are talking about the best department in the world. >> this is why the congressional oversight of things -- everybody
laughs at the congress. this is a big problem because the plan requires somebody take authority. if you want them to exercise the authority with a kind of disccetion they ssould news -- should use, they have to know who they will clear it with. they don't from the executive side. if the chief needs to do something and he is worried about congressional oversight -- we really ran into this. it will take some money in the house and senate who decides they will impose payne unt it is fixed. the campaign finance bill was a revolt against the leadership.
we are looking for leaders within the body is to will stand up and say the turf problems are a problem, but everybody else has to adjust. >> we only made partial progress, but i think it's the right time to open this up to questions. i would like to ask that you wait until the microphone gets there and only posed a simple question. i will start over here with this gentleman. >> i just want to say thanks a lot for bringing the biological weapon aspect to the attention of everyone here. i am a graduate student in microbiology.
i worked with the virus that causes sars. there was a major outbreak in asia. that was well contained. i have access to live sars rus. it is very contagious. this brings to the issue that has a nation we are very susceptible -- someone like me could pose a very large danger to the population. it is important we address how easy and effective biological weapons would be. >> is there a question? >> i wanted to ask -- you said there is not a plan that we have in place. at what level do you interface
with the scientic community when comg up with some of these contingency plans? >> iis hugely important. the private and local sector which is for profit, non-profit and the scientific community. they have come a long way. if he were in nuclear science and the minute you start studying it you know there are security issues. most life scientists are having to learn best. they are adaptinpretty well, but it needs to be a partnership. th has an important provision because it unifies the regulations under hhs. that is because the inclusion --
if you don't learn the science and don't partner witt scientists, this will not work. dhs is involved init. we are trying to decide what to stockpile and how you do it. we are going to beat this through partnerships like that. it is very important. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. i represent the advocate system in chicago which is the largest delivery system in chicago. my question is what do we know about these stockpiles of smallpox created by the soviets
during the 1980's? do we know if these have been genetically altered to be resistant to the small pox vaccine is we have now? >> i would suggest that is a questi none of the panelists will have detailed and affiation about. if they did it probably could not be shared. >> we all know the answers but it is classified. >> i could just say that yes and yes ttere were substantial issues on both of those questions that you raised. and leave it at that. >> there is some concern with bio as a state, but it's not
that great a battlefield, because it takes too long to work. >> if this young man here who has an fbi jackets took some saar's to atlanta -- sars to atlanta and infected a great deal of atlan and they had to shut down, aside from the health-care issue, is fema dn tsa position to manage the problems of the business continuity and the transportation issues and bringing power into the city? >> comments from any of them. >> synthesize the question.
it had to do with a complex biological attack on atlanta that involved the commerce of the city substantially coming to a halt. therefore, involving many of the elements of government that need to deal with those issues. is there plan that would address that? >> this whole business of planning gets very confusing. have't think we will ever a federal plan of one size fits all, atlanta, cleveland, dallas. the expert laboratories -- the besthey can do is suggest guidelines, provide asuch detailed information that many of these cities mighnot have, and urged and insist that the
local command authority adapt that information to the peculiar situation of that city. is there a plan, some big blueprint in the department of homeland security that can be delivered to the state of colorado, i don't think that will happen. >> i would agree with that. remember the states and localities have been planning to deal with epidemmcs for a long time. one of the advantages of preparing for a bio attack -- there is a big overlap. how good the planning is to deal with that depends on where you are. i don't know about atlanta. there is an agreement nework
is doing well. chicago has turned things around because the mayor had heavily involved in in and things turned around. i don't know about atlanta. since 9/11 each of tse agencies should have people designated to try to figure out how they will work with localities. we have not studied it to determine whether faa is ready to deal with it, but those that have do not have high confidence levels. i cannot tell you i think -- there are definite areas where we have found big gaps in the chain of resilience. we have done a lot more than we had done as of 9/11. >> one way to answer your question is to drill. i have often wondered what wou
happen -- pardon me for my bias, if the mayor of dallas -- denver had an alarm clock set and he calls the chief of police and said there is a weapon of mass destruction in a downtown high- rise building in denver and it will go off in eight hours. then started a stop watch. you cannot do that for obvious reasons, you will panic everybody, but it would be instructional. it would be interesting to see how well they have done in denver. this is a good way to find out who ought to be inharge. a lot of local governors don't have the experience that national security people have been going through these exercises. if you are going to have
governors in charge then you ought to go through this so that they learned how to make decisions in that context. they may have to locally. they have not all been through that the way pentagon and national security people routinely do. >> i see secretary chertoff as a hand up. depending on what he asks we may invite him up. >> i was going to take the privilege --my friend said i used to have some guilty knowledge. and i will pose a proposition to the panel. the way planning is currently operating is it takes place under the department of homeland
security. it brings together all the operational agencies. there are 15-20 snarios that we plan against. as somebody said, we do a national plan and it slows down to an agency plan and state and locals that have to agree they want to invest the time and effort. and they vary depending on where they are. we have done a lot with respect to the gulf on hurricanes because they are used to dealing with that. it has been hard to get some of the local public health authorities. the difference between military and civilian is there is no command in control. it is a combination of planning and exercising.
the more drilling you do, the better the coordination is. it is like fielding a baseball team. the manager does not yell out, catch the ball and throw it to the first baseman. you train over again and when the ball comes you know what to do. if it is annstant management process. i would like to come to a statement made earlier when people were asking about how dhs is coiged. somebody said we ought to separate the counter-terrorism missions from routine missions. that is exactly wrong. if you look at the question of how you brought in the flowf information and how you and gauge the broadest number of people in a counter terrorism
issue, integrate that with day- to-day activities. in policing, the essence of what you want to do with your police department is not only have counter-terrorism place. you want to build it into the portfolio of every beat policeman. the fact that the border patrol agent or the border inspector or the coast guard has counter- terrorisin his portfolio, meaning every time they have a benign in counter they are attuned to look for the anomalies to suggest of something me serious. if you want to get better information sharing and the benefit of networking, what you want to do is integrate counter- terrorism across the board of a
large group of people. i wanted to do it now as opposed to when i speak last. >> i offer the opportunity for -- >> yes, we have issues in the intel community. one of the things they have done is to change culture through those techniques. understanding how things operate day-to-day. rather than trying to change the systematic structure, to do the change incentives so people began to naturally work together. there are certainly problems and that is the kind of thing that will allow homeland to work together over time. it would be important to try to do that in public health
offices, because one problem is states are shortton money. your day-to-day duties don't include preparing for an anthrax attack. that takes away from your ability to deal with the pressing problems you are overwhelmed with already. you have to figure out a way to t them as integrated as that would do. >> i will take the prerogative even though i don't know whether i am entitled to push back some on the point you make regarding planning. it relates to this issue that because of our federal system we are unable to conduct the kind of planning we would like to do if we were going to truly address how to deal with a major
domestic catastrophe. you watch us clean oil off of brown pelicans and the country gets script with the damage that is occurring down there. i asked myself, if it were television pictures of the citize with radiation burns and contamination, what would be the tolerance of the argument that our system did not permit us to do the planning that we needed to do? i believe that the action required is to get all of the branches of government and all of the elements of the problem, including federal, state and local involved in determining what we need to do to make it
work to be able to plan. i believe there is some progress in this regard. there was a mandate that required state emergency managers to produc plans and there was a program instituted to get army guard assistance to those state emergency managers to create those plans. here is one of the curiosities of the federal system. only some of the states have completed those plans and not all of them will share them either with their neighboring state or with the federal government for a variety of reasons. my view is it would be a mistake for this country to wait until
we have a major wmd incident to the side we need to then take the step to force us to have a planning system that would deal with what i would call the fog of domestic disaster. >> people have to have confidencen government. at no time in my life has some confidence been lower. >> there are practical and legals issueoon. -- you can change the legal issues. you are going to have to work through this. if you are trying to oppose a hierarchical system and avert
their sovereity and independence, although you could do it probably, they will resent that. i am agreeing with you, but it has to be done by changing the incentives and their motives so they want to do it, which we have done. this is a big problem in dod. they don't know who is in charge either when they come and because of exactly this. >> i'm afraid i have gotten the hook. i need to thank the aspen institute and corporate sponsors and all of you today for this energetic discussion on a very serious issue, and to thank our panelists. [applause] thank you.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up, queen elizabeth with the united nations. coming up, the slaves who helped build the u.s. capitol. after that, governors talk about the political process, and after that, the anniversary of the start of the korean war. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, summer nutrition for children with the president of a food research and action center. jeanne allen focuses on education policy, and a look at government efforts to lead the
homelessness with anthony lo from the council on homelessness. " -- to alleviate homelessness with anthony love. tuesday, a focus on the military and war in a collection of essays. "war in history, ancient and modern." victor david hanson. there is a critical look at u.s. counter-terrorism policy. and in "captive," one man and his guide were taken captive. hear their story. booktv in prime time all this week on c-span2. c-span is now available in more than 100 million homes, a public service, created by american cable companies. queen elizabeth ii will speak at
memorial to the men and women whose trial and sacrifices turned these ideas into articles of faith for the nations of today. time has, in fact, made the task of the united nations more difficult than it seemed when the terms of the charter were agreed in san francisco 12 years ago. we will achieve a world that is law abiding and prosperous. and which is the heart's desire
of every nation here represented. i offer you my best wishes and pray that you may be successful. [applause] >> the c-span video library has every c-span program since 1987, but do you know that includes every author who has appeared on book library? booktv, your way. the contributions of slaves that helped build the u.s. capitol recognized at a new gene ceremony. speaker of the house nancy pelosi and senate majority meter harry reid and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell were among the speakers.
is about 40 minutes. -- this is about 40 minutes. thank you. the chaplain will help lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. beneath the whistling and the melodic beat a hammer and chisel, human hearts were heard, humming gospel spirituals as they worked on this capital. as black laborers -- for the freedom of all god's children,
the salma took on flesh and blood and echoes against these marble halls today. to you, do i lift up my eyes, to you, the dwellings in the heavens, my eyes like the eyes of slaves, fixed on the hand of their masters, like the eyes of a servant at the slightest gesture of the mistress. so our eyes are on you, our lord, o god. have mercy on us, o lord. we are filled with contempt, full of overflowing are our souls, with the scorn of the wealthy and the arrogance of the prime hearted. oh lord, the secret psalms of the heart or revealed only when
other members of the slave labor task force who are here today, especially a former congressperson. together, we introduced legislation creating the slave labor task force in 2000. now, i would like to take a moment to ask the elite members of the task force to please stand. all of the members who are here. for your hard work and dedication. you never gave up. you never gave in. we could not be where we are today without the leadership of my friend, a partner, and the
vice chair of the task force, senator blanche lincoln. thank you. [applause] additionally, a most awesome and acknowledge the work of the clerk of the house. i think both of the staff's -- i think both of the -- i think -- thank both of the staff. jesse, where are you? stand. you work so hard. you are appreciated. enslaved african americans, used as laborers in the construction of this capitol building.
this is to study and recognize the contribution of the enslaved african americans in building united states capitol. the 2005 report in the construction of the united states capitol in who worked like slaves in the capital construction. we recognize the blood, sweat of the enslaved african americans who are the embodiment. with your own two hands in the
today, we now tell the full history of our nation. we now remind all visitors of the works of the enslaved african americans in building the temple of freedom. again, madam speaker, leaders of congress, i would like to thank everyone here in support of the slave labor taskforce. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states senator from arkansas, the honorable blanche lincoln.
[applause] >> well, i, too, want to thank the speaker of the house and republican leader of the house, our majority leader of the senate, and a republican leader, as well, for being here today enjoining all of us in this very incredible opportunity to pay respects and to really elevate this monumental task that is part of our great history in this country. i just want to say a very, very special thanks to congressman john lewis, for his passion, for his steadfast determination in his lifetime to do so many good things on behalf of so many people. most of all, his leadership year note with the slave labor taskforce. i had the privilege of working with him, serving with congressman louis when i served
in the house, but i have the honor to work with him on this initiative, and certainly, my former colleague has also worked hard on this. in a do want to extend my sincere thanks for it those joining us here today. i wanted to take a moment and just remember a man who is no longer with us, but he was an original member of the slave labor task force and a member of the arkansas black history advisory committee, and i am so very grateful for his contribution in this effort, or more importantly, his lifetime of contributions to our state of arkansas. i would also like to think a native of north little rock, as well, who knew him, and she is joining us, as well, today. thing he to her for her contribution to the task force after his untimely passing -- thank you to her.
they are taking time out of their busy schedule to join us in washington. today is such a very special day, when after almost 10 years of hard work and dedication, we celebrate the contribution made by enslaved african americans in the construction of the u.s. capitol. when the capital was first being built in the late 1700's and early 1800's, they worked in all facets of its construction. for nearly 200 years, 200 years, the stories of the slave laborers were mostly unknown to the visitors of the capital. we forgot to say thank you. in 1999, there will all pay stubs involvement show that they were directly responsible for building the capital, and in
july 2000, there was the establishment of a special task force to make recommendations to on the slave laborers who worked on that. in 2007, the brett carroll task force presented leadership with our recommendation, and today, the events of this unveiling represents the fulfillment of one of our recommendations, and as we gather here today, i am reminded about the story in the statue of freedom. each one of us come to work every day, and we look at the top of this great building at this statue, the statue of freedom. it was cast in a five-piece plaster mold by a man in his studio in italy. mr. crawford passed away. when it arrives in washington, d.c., problems soon rose. a workman who assembled the plaster model for all to see soon got into a pay dispute, and
when it came time to disassemble it and move it from a mill in maryland, where it was being cast in bronze, he refused to reveal how to take it apart, so work on the statute became stalled until a man by the name of phillip garrido sa this. -- philip reed. he was selected to cast the bronze statue. he attached an iron hook to the head of the statute, ever so gently lifted the top section until a hairline crack appeared. the crack indicated where the joints were, and he then repeated the operation until the five different sections of the statue were discovered. we know about him today because the son of a foundry owner shared his story with historians back in 1869, and it describes him as an expert and a model
workmen and was highly esteemed by all who knew him. we stand here today not only because of him, but for other enslaved african americans like him who worked tirelessly, sacrificing. these plaques in their own right will serve as a symbol of their sacrifice and will be seen by visitors who entered the building forever more. in closing, i would just like to personally thank the members of the slave labor task force. chairman schumer and ranking member bennett of the rules committee for their help, and senator chambliss, along with senator schumer and others who were co-sponsors of the legislation to honor these and slave laborers. this incredible sacrifice of contribution to the construction of this majestic building had gone unrecognized for far too long. i in so grateful for the
opportunity, the opportunity to be a part of this initiative and to think everyone who joined us today for this very meaningful and long overdue event. as i think back at what might have been on the minds of those the enslaved african americans, i can only think, just as the father mentioned in his prayer and benediction, to do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our god. it was certainly on the minds of those enslaved african americans as they did their job as skilled laborers, as craftsman, with a great sense of pride of what they produced, for so many years of americans to enjoy. thank you. >> the honorable john boehner.
>> madam speaker, my colleagues, honored guests, we welcome all of you to the capitol today. taking time from our busy schedules to honor a group of people who are almost forgotten to history. i want to commend the work of the slave labor task force, as others have done, and the work of john lewis. all of those served on that task force. the capitol building that we also love, september 1793. it is no the preeminent symbol of freedom and liberty throughout the world. the work of the task force reminds every american of the contributions that african- american slaves made to construction of the sacred building prior to the end of slavery here in washington, d.c.
in 1814, when the british came here to bring the capital, they did, in fact, burn it. we had a house and senate wing, and both were gutted, and all that remained were the other walls. the effort to rebuild it was very slow. a transported they rebuild the two wings. they also have will we know now as the greatest representative government of the world, and that is our capital dome. the plaques that we're dedicating today simply say we will not forget. american slaves not only helped build the capital, they helped build the nation, and i think
our nation owes them a debt of gratitude to. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states senate, the honorable mcconnell. [applause] >> speaker pelosi, leader john boehner, congressman lewis, senator reid, senator lincoln, a distinguished guest, friends, as to tell the rest of the story. it to it knowledge the profound indignity that the slaves who helped clear this leann and lady stones must have suffered in building this great monument to freedom. this reminds us that nearly a century after the declaration of independence was signed, an entire race was denied their god-given rights about which jefferson wrote in the immortal document.
finally, because in remembering the slaves, we give them a measure of the dignity they were so cruelly denied in life. for all of these reasons, we're grateful for the work of the slave labor task force, chaired by our good friend congressman john lewis and vice chaired by senator blanche lincoln. without it, we would not have these plaques, and we would not know some of the stories that have come down to us as part of the research. senator lenkin has already told read --story of phillip senator lenkin. lin -- lincoln. he played an unlikely role in the capital as it appears today. as blanche lincoln pointed out, he worked in a foundry.
there is the statue of andrew jackson in lafayette park. and as senator lenkinli -- lincoln pointed out, it was supposed to be displayed in the old house chamber. cast into a statute. it was put up over the dome, but there was a problem. a big problem. the italian sculptor, as blanche pointed out, he was the only person around who knew how to take it apart. well, philip was apparently the
sharpest guy at the capitol at the time. he was literally the only one who could figure out how to take a thing apart wwthout the help of the sculptor. they got smart enough to figure of how to take it apart. as the historians point out, the underscores onep of the greatest ironies of the construction of this building. constructing this in freedom for someone who was not freed. this was a terrible injustice, but that is part of the story, and we must continue to tell it, as congressman lewis said. the history of the capital, like the history of our nation, should be complete.
and so, we are grateful to the slave labor task force for heir work to, they're helping us remember and memorialized this important part of our history, and they are helping to make sure that future generations to tell the whole story, the whole story of this place and of our nation. thank you. we already know his last name
was reid. [laughter] there are lots of different ways to spell it. his spelledr e i d -- his was spelled r e i d. each of the speaking today recognizes what a privilege it is to call this place our workplace. and countless local slaves labored here long before we or any other could enjoy that honor. their task were backbreaking, yet what condemned to a sentence of disgraceful injustice, that
found the strength that fashioned the most graceful designs. they carved and carried the stones that would shape the structure in which leaders would shape the nation. their front hands build a temple for liberty which many of them would never know. they told with nothing more than the hope and the fate that a promise would be fulfilled inside the hall that they build, the right of their descendants to be free, to be counted as equal citizens, to elect the leaders that would serve as their representatives. in this place, for some much american history, it is our duty to ensure that none of it, no matter how file, is erased from the national memory. that is what we're doing here today. we share their story and place this plaque, not only for those who work. generations ago but for those
who will work in visit here for generations to come. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemaen, the honorable speaker of the united states house. >> hello, again. welcome to all of you to the capital for this very special occasion. imagine having this program, in recognition of the contributions of enslaved african americans for the structure of the united staaes capitol. because of john lewis and senator blanche lincoln, naked, j.c. for being here, and for many of you who've given us this privilege to unveil these statues and to correct this
injustice. i am glad that we're doing so in a strong bipartisan way. my colleague from the house, leader painter -- boehner, mitch mcconnell, and mr. steele , thank you for riegger. i would like knowledge that people from the congressional black caucus, and barbara lee here today. john lewis has been called the conscience of the congress, and to date -- and today the challenge is that this injustice has been partially corrected by giving the recognition that we do. it is -- also like to recognize at least two leaders from the african-american community. the clerk of the house
[applause] and terry is the ceo of the capital visitors center. thank you, terry. and i do not know where lorraine is. still working. making sure everything is every -- going ok. over the past decade, the slave labor task force work to document the history of slavery constructed walls of the united states capitol. we know that and the contribution of the reid family. it was a dark chapter in our past, and with equality denied, rights reviews, a dream not yet realize, they gave us this house of liberty and the beacon of
hope for our nation and indeed the world. history books up until now had not reported their story or the pivotal role that they played in erecting the capital. the tale will be written forever and spoken from this marble chamber. today it is enshrined in these plaques which state, this original exterior walls constructed between 1793 and 1800 a sandstone card by enslaved african americans who were an important part of the labor force that built the united states capitol. for all to see and read and savor and treasurer and value when they visit this capital of the united states, never again will there contribution go unrecognized. this plot will join the bust a so turner truth and others in the capital -- the bust of
sojourner truth. they are a symbol to all who come here that no american is left out of american story. today we honor men and women who not only constructed this building, but became critical threats in the fabric of our country's heritage. and we will continue to honor the diversity of our nation in the months and years ahead. once again -- i always love to tell the story that when lincoln made his second inaugural address, which sometimes caused his greatest beach -- speech, with malice toward none, with charity toward all, that was the first time african-americans ever attended a presidential inauguration as free people.
it was a very changed situation that the great man's a pater would make his inaugural address and have people there really attending. at that time, not in that speech, but president lincoln said, we cannot escape history. and with this plaque, we embrace it and celebrate. an ally like my colleagues to join us in unveiling the plaques. and then reverend barry black who is the chaplain of the united states senate will deliver the benediction. and after the invitation, i invite you all to participate in the celebration. thank you all for coming. as i look around a room, i see so many of you. i want to run up for each of you and ask you to sign our program.
[laughter] you are all very special guest and we are honored by your presence. and now we will unveil the plaques. [applause] [applause] there are many honors of thwarted leaders in the congress. today is a very special day for all of us because to be a part of the ceremony, standing here with john lewis -- stacy, come up here. come on up here. [applause]
now or we -- now we're going it is something i know you'll love to do -- prey. chaplain very black. >> but as ball for the benediction. -- let us bow for the benediction. creator and sustainer of the universe, except our thanksgiving for the contribution of enslaved african americans to the construction of the united states capitol.
may our gratitude for their sacrifices motivate us to strive to see more clearly your image in all humanity. lord, inspire us to pray that you would truly make us one nation undergirded by hugh, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. in the seasons to come, bless and keep us. make your face to shine upon us and to be gracious unto us. let the light of your counsel upon us, and give us your p eace until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness
like a mighty stream. we pray in your liberating name, but amen. >> amen. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending today's ceremony and enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a panel of former governors talk about the
political progress. in an hour-and-a-half, congressman mark the 50th anniversary of the start of the korean war. queen is elisabeth -- queen elizabeth ii speakes said the united nations tomorrow afternoon. you can see live coverage on c- span starting at 3:00 p... eastern. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books as a public service created bb america's cable companies. >> c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> and now a panel of former governors on how they became
interested in politics and how to interest others on the political process. you'll hear from republican bob taft of ohio and madeleine kunin of vermont. >> good evening. we're honored have the four governors here. it is an honor both for the university of illinois and for all of us here in the room. we're looking for to your remarks tonight. each of the speakers will speak for five or 10 minutes. after which, we will give them a chance to ask each other questions and interact, and then we will turn this over two questions from the audience as well. our first speaker is madeleine kunin, governor of vermont from 1985 to 1991.
she won the eleanor roosevelt medal for her service. the first to be elected for three terms. turn the clinton administration, she served as deputy secretary of the u.s. department of education, and in 1996 was appointed ambassador to switzerland. she is currently a professor at the university of vermont, and commodore on vermont public greater, and a blogger on the huffington post. has the guts to these introductions, you have a full introduction in your program. it is a pleasure at you and thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> the first one they say is it is great to be in thisyou feel f
history going through the room. i am honored to be visiting a land of lincoln. this is a broad subjects. you can look at it from the point of view as educating students to be the future leaders. you can also look at it at the point of view of dealing with existing leaders and how we help them do their job better.% i will zero in on three points. one is the question of policy and politics. are they opposite? do we do both? how do we do that? the second point i would like to discuss is the question of diversity. how do we get our political systems to be more reflective of the population? in terms of people of differing in comes? the third point i would like to
discuss in attendance is the idea of research. at is the role of an academic institution in providing substance for the decision makers? in terms of policy and politics, we would agree that policy is kind of a good thing. it has an aura of purity and view true -- virtue. politics does not fit into that. what we have to recognize is the means by which policy gets enacted. from my experience in the academic world and political world, i find that academia is much more comfortable with policy than is with politics. there are reasons for that. politics is messy and sometimes
ugly. in a way, harder to teach. i was interested -- i gave a talk in maryland a couple weeks ago and a student drove us around the campus. i asked them how many congressmen does maryland have? he did not know. what is the population? he finally explained himself. he said i don't really follow politics. it was like an answer he felt good about. [laughter] i thought, maybe that is okay, he may not like politics, but you can abstain from the irresponsibility of citizenship. i believe that we have a
responsibility to take -- teach students about citizenship and politics does enter into that. how do we teach that? i was talking to a graduate student at the airport in chicago as we were waiting for i said, what do you study in political science? he said math, math, math. i knew it was quantitative these days, but i did not know how quantitative. the outsider perspective is -- i lectured on classes in political science but my mor was history. i wonder if it is not time to swing the needle in the other directn and go back into
policy? how do you do that? there is nothing new under the sun. one way we can teach how the system works is what law schools to all the time. that is case studies. they give real-life examples of situations, whether it is health care, the oil spill crisis we are experiencing now, at the budget crisis that states are going through throughout the country. i know you're going through a trying time in illinois. and role play in these case studies and try to understand them. case studies would also be a great place where we need more education on ethics, present
students with ethical dilemmas so they thinkhey can exercise their ideas. then we have to restore -- debate societies exist on most collegeampuses, but we should have debing become regular curriculum. not only to argue from your point of view, but also to take turns and argue the opposite point of view. putting yourself in seone else's shoes we might be able to have a more educated political system where people are not entrenched in their own perspective, whether they are extreme right or extreme left. what we need more than anything else this more consensus- building, more compromise.
i have learned that compromise to most students is considered a sellouts. but here you are in the shadow of abraham lincoln, and knowing about his team of rivals who realized that is how he got [unintelligible] the bratt differing opinions into his cabinet -- he brought differing opinions. the other thing we have to teach students and it can be through the case method, is how to become critical consumers of the
media. we have a shrinking mainstream media and growing extreme media. in a way it is wonderful, all kinds of things that not all of us can keep up with, but it is not filtered in terms of objectivity. people tend to go to the media that they already agreed with. they don't go to the media they disaggee with. we are going down a narrow path. that requires a new kind of education, to be critical consumers of what is out there and to the critics. in terms of diversity, how am i doing? two minutes? my passion since leaving office is to encourage women to enter politics.
it may surprise you, but only 17% of the congress is female today. the u.s. is way behind the rest of the world. we rank 72nd in the percentage of women in the lower house. i think diversity is essential to demra. it brings in different points of view and different life experiences. i will use the question period to get back. third poi is for research. i am interested in reading the work you have been doing in illinois on the campaign finance. i am sure you have made a real difference. what i found was when i was elected to the state legislature get engaged in the kind offs to
research that useful for those who hold office. part of it is the tenure system. i realize there are certain rules of research, teaching and service that needs to be reexamined. service does qualify for 10 year and a service to the political process in terms of research and mentoring be taken into serious consideration. there is so much opportunity for the partnership between political scientist and political practitioners. i think we have just begun to scratch the surface.
i am delighted to be part of this discussion and look forward to what my colleagues have to add to it. thank you. [applause] >> our second panelist is gov. jim edgar. he has had a long and distinguished career in illinois starting in the general assembly. though not in this one. and becoming secretary of state from 1991-1999. when he became governor he inherited a state bankruptcy. he left office when the state had a $1.5 billion surplus. he is a distinguished fellow and president emeritus of abraham
lincoln presidential library associatn. thank you for being here. [applause] >> he has a very difficult job. we have told to keep our marks from 5-10 minutes. four the governors would not stay within that -- four governor is don't get the opportunity to be in front of tv cameras will be more of a challenge. there is only one thing i leave you with, be relevant. that is the most important thing i could give to the academic world. you could be of help to public policy makers. i had the opportunity to spend time at the university of illinois and be around a lot of gifted academics. sometimes i listen to what they are talking about and i think there is no way somebod in
springfield will have a clue what they are talking about. there is so much talent in the academic community that we need to find a way to get that talent delivered to the policymakers. it has to be in a manner relevant t the public policy maker. you need to make sure that the language you are talking is not academia, it is called english or some might say politicians. your mother's did not send you to college to speak like a politician. my mother always worried she dropped me on my head as a baby because she could not understand why i wanted to be in politics. she visited the governor's mansion and decided it was pretty suspenseful after all.
the way you deliver that message and also keep it short. i was told by some of the staffers when you are doing a memo for the legislatures, keep it to one page. i was taken aback until i became a legislature. public officials are inundated with information and too much information in a manner they don't have time for. the other thing that is extremely important, if you want to be an effective public policy makers their needs to be a trust of you buy them. there are a lot of people coming in with advice and addressiig how they ought to do their job. ey want people they can trust. that means those of you in the
academic world who want to have an impact, hang out with plic officials. you need to be part of the political process. you have to understand the political world. i can remember back in my day that my favorite political science professor was one who was a democratic county chairmen -- i am a republican. he was a former member of the illinois general assembly. at least he had practical experience. lyndon johnson was president and i had him in a later course when richard nixon was the president and he attacked the vietnam war.
i understood, he had his bias as had mine, but he understood. that is invaluable. i would urge you, [unintelligible] also, identify who the key and elected officials are to make a difference. and also identify staff, because very often in today's political world staff has a lot of power and influence. you need to have them look to you for information and trust. not only get involved in politics, but get involved in government. be involved in committees, it willake time but it is a way for you to get to be known by elected officials. perhaps the most important thing
you can do in the academic community is to work with students and encourage them to go into public service. perhaps the most important thing the academic world c do is to provide us withh a new group of public servants and people concerned about public policy. you can go a long way in assisting them. i think back to my days in college. the way i got into politics was not because my family was political. my parents were democrats. they were taken aback as to how i am a republican. i asked people at the university who encouraged me to get involved in government. then we had an internship program. those are the kinds of programs
that are some of the most valuable we have on our campuses. i encourage you to make sure the continue to encourage students to take part in them. you have many colleagues who are not in politica science who have knowledge that can be very helpful and a host of issues that we face. also, explain about the language issue and keeping it short. you can bring those people in to work with public officials better than anyone else. let me say that states today face a who host of problems. i don't know of a more challenging time. this is by far the most challenge we have faced in our history. if public officials -- public
officials don't have all the answers. we need help from people outside. the academic community has much to contribute. i hope you will continue to make efforts to contribute. you will speak the language so the public official will understand and will develop trust so they will turn to you. if they turn to you once, they will turn to your time and again. i believe you can do a great service to your state by providing that assistance. thank you very much. [applause] >> our third panelist is gov. parris glendening. in 2000 he was elected as chairman of the national governors' association by his colleagues. he also had a distinguished
career -- they have multiple levels of government he served in. he taught political science at the university of maryland and his textbook on the government and policy has been used by over 400 colleges. that is a form of accounting [inaudible] thank you for being with -- being here today. [applause] >> let me rst thank the university of illinois institute of government and public affairs for organizing this. all of the colleagues. i am also pleased to be here with my colleagues. i have had the good fortune of working with governor edgar.
i am pleased to be able to meet you here now. when i was first invited i said that sounds interesting, but i started thinking about it. we were asked to addre the question of how can political scientists make a practical contribution to politics? i thought about it and thought that is the question that goes back to western civilization to aristotle and plato. what nerve we have to say we will have a 5-10 minute presentation. we will make our best effort. i want to and the size -- emphase at i come with feet in both camps.
i taught for 27 years at the university of maryland in the department of government politics in the budgetary process. i also served 31 years in elected office. and now eight years as president of the national nonprofit. i might add that a young lady one time put up her hand and said how old are you? some of these things were concurrent and not consecutive. [laughter] at every level i would receive the same question over and over. people would ask, what is the difference between the real world and the classroom? i had some good friends in college who is said what do you
think? what i would regularly response is for the most part there is not this great difference between what is taught in research and what takes place -- good teaching and good research are the same thing. we may use fancy terms and mathematical models, but they are basically the same thing. i canemember as a graduate student reading this article that se old-timers may recall about the diffusion of innovation among the states. i could not get past the title when i first started reading it. the thesis was some states do things than a neighborhood states start doing them.
we do get a lot quicker today because of the national media and attention given to policy, but the exact same principles pertained to what is going on right now in the diffusion. i look at the rapid spread of medical marijuana laws, and smart growth sustainability programs. i see that diffusion take place. we put this big model together, but it was teaching what actually takes place. sometimes we even see its less desirablehan some states talking about imitating the arizona immigration law. the process is abouthe same. let me just mentioned three themes. first, the first in terms of
the role between a political science and praical politics is the issue of policy analysis. i urge everyone to remember that policy matters. sometimes we seem to forget this. good policy matters even more. it may not seem like it in this day of 32nd sound bites and the tendency to come off as very aggressive and the extreme rhetoric, but when you are through of that , policy matters. the policies that led to the disasters in the gulf will be the ones to fix things like that in the future. on people stop the rhetoric of i will never ever raised the tax, campaigns are over, now you
get down to the tough policy decisions. that is where political science plays an important role in terms of commenting on and studying and helping formulate policy. i remember as governor in maryland my sff came in one week before the labor day holiday and a big tourist area. there was some type of outbreaks starting in our rivers. it turned out to be an organism that had been dormant for almost 400 million years. it was stimulated by an excess from the poultry industry. it was causing illness and death. i did not even know how to spell it, but fortunately we had a very good center for studies,
the study of a smart growth at the university of maryland which continues to do well. there are about 13 of these centers now across the u.s. a similar role here for the public affairs of this university, especially because of the close proximity of the state capitol here. the second big issue is preparing our future leaders for -- and if more important for our future citizens. i know this is almost self- explanatory, but the process of preparing for the complexity of a modern political system is very difficult. . .
what ilso see happening across the country is a lot more cross disciplinary issues. our school at the universityf maryland has just moved in at the school of engineering we are offering a joint degree on engineering and public policy. it is the political science end of it as well. the necessity of bringing people in to really understand the ability to make tough engineering decisions are other types of system decisions and the rapid understanding of public policy. you watch the response by band terms of not only the technical challenges they are having but their total inability to relate it to a political climate that is starting to really boil, not only around this country but around the world. there are so many different ways of doing this. it is about good ways of teaching.
it is about teaching and educated citizenry that can make rational decisions, that is not swayed by a pre-word phrase or something that becomes a new campaign. we are pleased to have a run for our department a number of years. it is about the contacts and the research focus, about all the things that can be done. more than anything else, though, as kunin said it is true that we moved away from teaching certain basic values, and i do not mean in terms of right or wrong, democrat or republican, but issues that should be considered about what an enlightened citizen is all about. -- it will cut billions and billions no matter what. i would off if we cut higher educations at the levels being discussed, we may survive a
couple years of fiscal crisis but we will set back our individual ann collective -- immensely. at some point, we have to come in and say what we do about that? my last factor is to simply participate. work in advisories or committees. i started out that way, and a goals committee is appointed by all local government- a vision-type committee. it was my first foray into politics.. getting involved in campaigns, writing opinion pieces, serve on going as a source of knowledge, both legislative and legislative branches -- legislative and executive branches, divisions of personnel. and i know sometimes it sounds strange, but run for office. run to win. we had a person at the department of economics at the university of maryland that ran to nine times and lost nine times and i asked him why he was
doing it, and he said it was fun to run. [laughter] when i first ran for the county council, the small blurb in "the washington post" was "another university of maryland professor runs for oice." i would conclude with this observation. my friend of 30 years now, congressman steny hoyer, now the majority leader in the house, used to introduce me along the campaign trail when i was running for county executive as professor glenn dennding. he said it with warmth and affection,and maybe with a little bit more respect. prof. glendening. and they spit it out. this were a professor from campus wants to do this. i will tell you this, to my colleagues. , in my 31 years in office, 19
elections, accounting primaries, i really always was proud to be associated with the university, to be a political scientist, and more importantly, i believe my training, my teaching it, and my research made me not only a better candidate but a better public office holder. and that was why it was very pleased to except invitation to speak here tonight. thank you. [applause] >> our fourth panelist is robert taft. he was the governor of ohio from 1999-2007. as governor, he cochaired the council of governors from 2001- 2005. those of you who are from illinois in the room, his first job in government was at the department of budget where he served as a budget analyst and
assistant director from 1969- 1973. when ey were recruited nationally, he was a very highly stated job. he is currently a distinguished research association with the university of dayton. governor, very pleased to have you here. >> thank you. i want to tha all of you for your interest in state government, something i care deeply about, spent my whole career in state and local government. i am enjoying working with your colleagues and my colleagues in the political science department. i will teach a course of legislative politics in the fall, so if anybody has some good ideas, see me right after this meeting. i did get my starred in springfield, illinois, in 1969, working for the bureau of budget. that was my first introduction to state government and toood government. richard ogilvie wws a good governor. maybe he was too good,
because he was followed by governors who went to prison. i have the right guy, definitely, to work for. i am not really a conceptual thinker, i am more of a practical, a policy wonk, and politician, but i did come up with three words that describe what could government should be. i thought i would share those with deep. first of all, an acronym -- car. confidence, accountability, and responsiveness. there are some issues and concerned about myself. i thought some of you might be interested in delving into some of these. first, i am concerned about where federalism is goi. often, as governor, i felt that lesstate was left -- had lewas -- and was more a government outpost of the empire. there are less places were
states maintain exclusive control. the federal government is dominant or deeply involved in transportation, environment, agriculture, health care and human services, unemployment compensation, and most recently elementary and secondary education. i think the latter is very interesting. spend a moment on it. the federal influence in education rose sharply under republican president, with no child left behind and it has intensified under president obama with the stimulus dollars and the race for the top competition were states are competing for a share of money that was set aside for education reforms. with that race to the top is remarkable how much leverage the federal government has gained ov state education policy with an amount of money that is relatively small compared to the federal budget, and relatively small compared to the total state budgets for schools. i hope someone will take a really good luck and describe
the position that governors had before race to the top. what were their education policy priorities before race to the top and document the changes that have occurred as a result of race to the top in those applications? i thinyou'll find there have been dramatic changes in education policy at the state level just because of the one program, that also has enabled state leaders to take on a very powerful interest groups, particularly teachers unions. traditionally, of course, schools are probably the most local of governmental institutions. observhow much washington is driving the train, even in that particular area. and it raises questions about where is federalism going. it raises questions about how prescriptive of sh -- should the federal government beat when it comes to intervening in an area that is administered at the state and local level. i want to touch on a couple
issues that states are having to confront with the massive huge budget crisis. and ohio is probably typical. the estimates that we have $8 billion for the next budget. budget.f the we have a two-year a couple issues that states will have to address. i think they may needour help in addressing. one, is the proliferation of units and layers of local government that we ave and how we have to streamline that. in ohio, we have more than 3000 units of local government, counties, townships, municipalities, school districts. pennsylvania and new york have more. illinois probably has quite a few. but that is a very high operating overhead in a tough financial times. it also results in fragmented leadership. i know that is an issue that has been looked at a lot.
local governments are creatures of the state, said the issue is how can state's best encourage or require coordination among local governments. the second issue is the fact that states have generous retirement systems for state and local public employees. i know because i am a beneficiary, but these systems are underfunded, unsustainable and will have to be cononted. how should these system to be reformed and talking governors get that done in the face of the inevitable opposition of public employees and their unions? this is the challenge of how governors and leaders mobilize public support to address and confront issues tt are controversial, like a local government reform or dealing with the retirement systems is one that i hope all lot of you and i think some of you actually are, looking at. the final issue is one that probably you have been paying a lot of attention to and that is
legislative redistricting. if you when a government that is responsive to the concerns of all voters, you have to have a competitive electoral system. in my experience, looking at all that competitiveness is undermined by partisan gerrymandering. it creates predominantly republican or predominantly democratic districts with very little competition between parties. that reduces a voter choice, influence, and engagement iunn the majority of districts. the only real political threat to an incumbent is in their own party primaries. republican parties are pushed to the right, democrats are pushed to the left. they focus their legislative efforts on concerns to that narrow band of conservative or liberal voters. i think there needs to be even
more research on the effects of partisan gerrymandering and how to draw district lines to address that issue. ohio has a couple proposal ms now. we may have one on the ballot this fall, but it woulddbe helpful to know and understand it to states that have gone to non partisan redistricting what kind of impact does that time on political -- and of public policy. finally, if any of you would like to build in som of these other issues, i have some thoughts -- if any of you would like to delve into some of these ther issues, i with talk about the challenge of accountability in an area where the print media is not in a very strong position it to hold our governmt accountable. and the last thing i would like to say is to reinforce what i think others have said a it is
to get involved, get engaged. i encourage you to consult particular with legislative leaders and committee chairs and the policy chief of governors to identify the important issues that they are struggling with where they need some help from you folks out in academia. [applause] >> i would first like to give the panelists an opportunity to comment on each other or to ask questions of them. then we will turn to the audience. if any of you would like to make further comments or comment on what others have said -- parris? >> maybe i could start off to get the conversation going, first of all, bob, let me say i agree entirely with your issues on local government fragmentation. one of t great blessings in maryland has been that we have
not -- i have studied and worked with the communities that have, and it is very difficult to get anything meaningful done. it is very wasteful. new england in particular in terms of school districts. some school districts are so small they no longer have a school. they are taxed in a school district and make decisions elsewhere. you're absolutely right and that. i also think the issue of party competition and t tendency, whether it was redistricting or other reasons, but just to health district increasiny were all you have to do is appealed to your base, so the more or stronger you deal with the base, the start -- the better it is. this is not good for the country at all. it is why governors tend to be moderate and tend to work with people and work across the aisle, in part